Re: THEORY: Active case-marking natlangs

And wrote:
>Marcus:
> > There are four proto-typical roles
> > (ignoring ditransitives and experiencers): Subject of a transitive (S),
> > object of a transitive (P), subject of an "active" verb (A), and subject of
> > a "stative" verb (O). (Defining "active" and "stative" is not easy, and I'm
> > not even going to try here since it is irrelevant.) Accusative languages
> > group these four roles as S/A/O (nom) vs P (acc). Ergative languages group
> > the roles as P/A/O (erg) vs S (abs). Active languages group them as S/A
> > (active) vs P/O (stative). Tokana and Nur-ellen pull S and A apart and have
> > a system like S1/A1 vs S2/A2 vs S3/A3 vs P/0. This is why I do not consider
> > them active.
>
>Can you explain why? You quite rightly (IMO) define active as S=A, P=O, and
>as far as I can see, Tokana conforms to these equations. S and A are always
>treated alike. The fact that the S/A function can be taken by NPs with
>several different morphological cases should be neither here nor there.
You have a good point, I hadn't considered this. I suppose I'm put off by
the fact that none of the active natlangs I've worked with make lots of
distinctions like this. Of the natlangs that do have multiple cases, I've
only really looked at Georgian, and I'm hestitant to call it active,
because it is only conforms to an active pattern in the proper
tense/aspect. I need to think about this more.



Marcus Smith

"Sit down before fact as a little child,
be prepared to give up every preconceived notion,
follow humbly wherever and to whatsoever abysses Nature leads,
or you shall learn nothing."
                -- Thomas Huxley

Reply